DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 February 2026 has been entered.
Formal Matters
Claims 1, 3, 11, and 20 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The objection to claim 3 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s RCE filed 17 February 2026 enters the Arguments made after-final, received on 1/20/2026. Applicant arguments that the claim amendments overcome the rejections of record. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for the reasons of record and the reasons set forth below, addressing the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Scheib et al., US 20220015840 (20 January 2022, benefit to 17 July 2020).
Regarding currently amended claim 1, Scheib teaches a robotic surgical system (FIG 18; 1800), comprising:
a robotic arm (1836a, 1836b) including a plurality of joints (1820), wherein a distal-most joint (1819) of the plurality of joints (1820) is pivotally connected to an adjacent joint of the plurality of joints about a pivot axis (¶154 pivotal attachment);
a surgical instrument (1853);
a surgical portal (1859); and
a linear slide mechanism (FIGs 18, 19C-D; 1852/1854; ¶156) rotatably coupled (¶154) to the distal-most joint of the plurality of joints of the robotic arm (1819),
wherein the linear slide mechanism (1852/1854; ¶156) is rotatable relative (¶154) to the distal-most joint of the plurality of joints about an axis extending transverse to the pivot axis (¶157),
wherein the linear slide mechanism (1852/1854; ¶156) supports the surgical portal (1859) for translation (¶157, longitudinally moveable):
relative to the surgical instrument (1853) (¶157); and
relative to the linear slide rotation axis (FIGs 19C, 19D, rotation point 1984, ¶161) to vary a distance of the surgical portal relative to the linear slide rotation axis. the surgical portal relative to the surgical instrument (1853) (¶¶157, 160).
Regarding claim 2, Scheib teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 1, as set forth above, wherein the linear slide mechanism (FIGs 18, 19C, 19D; 1852/1854; ¶156) includes an arm assembly (1850) including a stationary segment (1852) and a movable segment (1854), the movable segment (1854) positioned to move relative to the stationary segment (1852).
Regarding currently amended claim 3, Scheib teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 2, as set forth above, wherein the movable segment (1854) slides along the stationary segment (1852; ¶156)
Regarding claim 4, Scheib teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 3, as set forth above, wherein the linear slide mechanism (FIGs 18, 19C, 19D; 1852/1854; ¶156) includes a drive housing (1851) on a proximal end portion thereof (¶156, FIG 18), the drive housing (1851) coupled to the robotic arm (modular joint 1819 of robotic arm 1836b), the stationary segment extending from the drive housing (1851).
Regarding claim 5, Scheib the robotic surgical system of claim 4, as set forth above, wherein the drive housing (1852) is coupled to an instrument drive unit (1850) that operates the surgical instrument (1853).
Regarding claim 6, Scheib teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 5, as set forth above, further comprising a sterile interface module that connects the surgical instrument to the instrument drive unit (¶89).
Regarding claim 7, Scheib teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 6, as set forth above, wherein the movable segment (1854) is movable (¶157, longitudinally moveable) relative to the surgical instrument (1853).
Regarding claim 9, Scheib teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 8, as set forth above, wherein the drive housing (1852) supports a drive motor (¶157) and a drive that is operable by the drive motor (¶157) to cause the movable segment (1854) to move relative to the stationary segment (1852).
Regarding claim 10, Scheib teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 9, as set forth above, wherein the drive (¶157) includes a cable drive, a belt drive, a rack and pinion drive, electromagnetic linear drive, or combinations thereof (¶157 cable system).
Regarding currently amended independent claim 20, Scheib teaches a robotic surgical system (FIG 18; 1800), comprising:
a robotic arm (1836a, 1836b) including a plurality of joints (1820), wherein a distal-most joint (1819) of the plurality of joints (1820) is pivotally connected to an adjacent joint of the plurality of joints about a pivot axis (¶154 pivotal attachment);
an instrument drive unit (1850),
a surgical instrument (1853) removably coupled (¶156) to the instrument drive unit (1850)
a surgical portal (1859);
a controller (¶103-105, 1400; ¶153); and
a linear slide mechanism (FIGs 18, 19C, 19D; 1852/1854; ¶156) rotatably coupled between the distal-most joint (1819) of the plurality of joints (1820) of the robotic arm (1836a, 1836b) and the instrument drive unit (1850),
the linear slide mechanism (FIGs 18, 19C, 19D; 1852/1854; ¶156) including a movable segment (¶157, longitudinally moveable) that is operatively coupled to the controller (¶153) to enable the controller to actively move the surgical portal relative to (¶156) the distal-most joint (1819) of the plurality of joints of the robotic arm (1820) (¶156), wherein the linear slide mechanism (1852/1854; ¶156) is rotatable relative (¶154) to the distal-most joint (1819) of the plurality of joints (1820) about a linear slide rotation axis extending transverse to the pivot axis (FIG 18, ¶157):
wherein the linear slide mechanism (1852/1854; ¶156) supports the surgical portal (1859) for translation (¶157, longitudinally moveable):
relative to the surgical instrument (1853) (¶157); and
relative to the linear slide rotation axis (FIGs 19C, 19D, rotation point 1984, ¶161) to vary a distance of the surgical portal relative to the linear slide rotation axis. the surgical portal relative to the surgical instrument (1853) (¶¶157, 160).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheib et al., US 20220015840 (20 January 2022, benefit to 17 July 2020) in view of Loh et al., US 20080147089 (19 June 2008), as evidenced by Anderson et al., US 20060161136 (20 July 2006).
Regarding claim 8, Scheib teaches the robotic surgical system of claim 7, as set forth above.
Scheib teaches wherein the movable segment (1854) is configured to support the surgical portal (1859).
Scheib does not teach wherein the moveable segment supports a mount assembly.
Loh teaches a linear slide mechanism including a mount assembly (FIG 5B; 108) configured to selectively receive and lock the surgical portal (110) to the linear slide mechanism (FIG 5C; ¶47).
Scheib and Loh teach in the same field of endeavor, surgical robotic systems comprising linear slide mechanisms. Scheib discloses the claimed base robotic system (FIG 18; 1800) (robotic arms (linkages 1818, joints 1920, modular joint 1819), instrument drive unit (1850), surgical instrument (1853), surgical portal (cannula 1859), and linear slide mechanism (1852/1854) configured to removably support the surgical portal relative to the surgical instrument (¶157). Scheib does not disclose a mount assembly configured to selectively receive and lock the surgical portal to the linear slide mechanism. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consult the literature on cannula supports with linear slide mechanisms. Loh incorporates by reference US Patent Application 11/240,087 at ¶47. The ‘087 application was published as Anderson et al., US 20060161136 (20 July 2006). FIGs 13A-B and 14A-B of Anderson demonstrate a selectively lockable and unlockable clamp to receive a cannula (¶¶75-76). Engineers working on Scheib-style devices would naturally consider mechanisms like Loh’s (108), as evidenced by Anderson, to control cannula insertion at the distal end of the linear slide mechanism. Loh specifically addresses an accessory clamp attached to a distal end of a base link (102) of a linear slide mechanism (100) so that an instrument such as a cannula (110) may be mounted into an accessory clamp (108) (¶47). Because Scheib teaches a linear slide mechanism that advances a cannula in a similar manner to the linear slide mechanism of Loh, a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking stability control over the distal portion of the linear slide mechanism and/or cannula using Scheib’s architecture, would reasonably consult Loh’s accessory clamp solution. Loh’s selectively locking and unlocking accessory clamp can be incorporated into the base architecture of Scheib’s linear slide mechanism (Scheib ¶156) using known assembly methods without redesigning Scheib’s core delivery path. Because the references address the same engineering problem (deployment of surgical instruments via cannulas on linear slide mechanisms) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding an accessory clamp at a distal end of a linear slide mechanism), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding currently amended independent claim 11, Scheib teaches a surgical system (FIG 18; 1800) comprising:
an instrument drive unit (1850);
a surgical instrument (1853) coupled to the instrument drive unit (¶154; FIGs 18, 19C, 19D)
a surgical portal (1859); and
a linear slide mechanism (FIGs 18, 19C, 19D; 1852/1854; ¶156) wherein the linear slide mechanism is configured to movably support (¶157, longitudinally moveable) the surgical portal relative to the surgical instrument (1853),
Scheib does not teach that the linear slide mechanism includes a mount assembly having a clamp configured to selectively receive and lock the surgical portal to the linear slide mechanism.
Loh teaches a linear slide mechanism including a mount assembly having a clamp (FIG 5B; 108) configured to selectively receive and lock the surgical portal (110) to the linear slide mechanism (FIG 5C; ¶47),
and wherein the linear slide mechanism (FIGs 5A, 5B, 5C; 100) is configured to translate (¶47, longitudinally moveable) the mount assembly (108) relative to both the instrument drive unit (FIG 5A, ¶50) and a distal end of the robotic arm (50, ¶47).
Scheib and Loh teach in the same field of endeavor, surgical robotic systems comprising linear slide mechanisms. Scheib discloses the claimed base robotic system (FIG 18; 1800) (robotic arms (linkages 1818, joints 1920, modular joint 1819), instrument drive unit (1850), surgical instrument (1853), surgical portal (cannula 1859), and linear slide mechanism (1852/1854) configured to removably support the surgical portal relative to the surgical instrument (¶157). Scheib does not disclose a mount assembly having a clamp configured to selectively receive and lock the surgical portal to the linear slide mechanism. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consult the literature on cannula supports with linear slide mechanisms. Loh incorporates by reference US Patent Application 11/240,087 at ¶47. The ‘087 application was published as Anderson et al., US 20060161136 (20 July 2006). FIGs 13A-B and 14A-B of Anderson demonstrate a selectively lockable and unlockable clamp to receive a cannula (¶¶75-76). Engineers working on Scheib-style devices would naturally consider mechanisms like Loh’s (108), as evidenced by Anderson, to control cannula insertion at the distal end of the linear slide mechanism. Loh specifically addresses an accessory clamp attached to a distal end of a base link (102) of a linear slide mechanism (100) so that an instrument such as a cannula (110) may be mounted into an accessory clamp (108) (¶47). Because Scheib teaches a linear slide mechanism that advances a cannula in a similar manner to the linear slide mechanism of Loh, a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking stability control over the distal portion of the linear slide mechanism and/or cannula using Scheib’s architecture, would reasonably consult Loh’s accessory clamp solution. Loh’s selectively locking and unlocking accessory clamp can be incorporated into the base architecture of Scheib’s linear slide mechanism (Scheib ¶156) using known assembly methods without redesigning Scheib’s core delivery path. Because the references address the same engineering problem (deployment of surgical instruments via cannulas on linear slide mechanisms) and the proposed modifications are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding an accessory clamp at a distal end of a linear slide mechanism), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.
Regarding claim 12, Scheib modified by Loh teaches the surgical system of claim 11, as set forth above.
Scheib teaches wherein the linear slide mechanism (FIGs 18, 19C, 19D; 1852/1854; ¶156) includes an arm assembly (1850) including a stationary segment (1852) and a movable segment (1854), the movable segment (1854) positioned to move relative to the stationary segment (1852).
Regarding claim 13, Scheib modified by Loh teaches the surgical system of claim 12, as set forth above.
Scheib teaches wherein the movable segment (1854) is slides along the stationary segment (1852; ¶156).
Regarding claim 14, Scheib modified by Loh teaches the surgical system of claim 13, as set forth above.
Scheib teaches wherein the linear slide mechanism (FIGs 18, 19C, 19D; 1852/1854; ¶156) includes a drive housing (1851) on a proximal end portion thereof (¶156, FIG 18), the drive housing (1851) coupled to the instrument drive unit (1850).
Regarding claim 15, Scheib modified by Loh teaches the surgical system of claim 14, as set forth above.
Scheib teaches wherein the drive housing (1851) supports an encoder (1010) configured to monitor positions of the movable segment (instrument driver carriage , which activates specific functionalities of the end effector, ¶157) relative to the stationary segment (1852).
Scheib teaches encoder 1010 in reference to an embodiment of instrument driver 1000 in order to measure the speed of the motor shaft and provide feedback to control circuitry 1012 which can also be used for receiving control signals and actuating the drive output 1012 in order to modulate the motor signal and generate the desired torque (¶88). It would be obvious to combine the encoder embodiment related to instrument driver 1000 taught by Scheib with the robotic system 1800 of Scheib comprising instrument driver 1850 because Scheib teaches that instrument driver 1850 has a drive carriage 1854 that houses the motors for instrument driving that is longitudinally moveable along a base 1852 that is pivotally attached to the modular joint 1918 (linear slide mechanism system) (¶157).
Scheib does not expressly disclose an encoder embodiment in robotic system 1800. However, Scheib discloses that robotic system 1800 comprises instrument driver 1850. Scheib teaches encoder 1010 in reference to instrument driver 1000 to measure the speed of the motor shaft and modulate the motor signal and generate the desired torque (¶88). One of ordinary skill in the art looking for better ways to control the desired torque of the end effector associated with instrument driver 1850 would find an engineering solution within the four-corners of the Scheib reference in embodiment 1000 and instrument driver 1010. It would have been obvious to combine the encoder embodiment related to instrument driver 1000 taught by Scheib with the robotic system 1800 of Scheib comprising instrument driver 1850 because the different embodiments of Scheib address the same engineering problem (modulating motor signals of instrument drivers to generate the desired torque). The proposed modifications of adding an encoder to the instrument driver in embodiment 1800 are mechanically compatible and implemented by routine engineering practices (adding an encoder to a motor). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings based on the configurations taught in the embodiments of Scheib.
Regarding claim 16, Scheib modified by Loh teaches the surgical system of claim 15, as set forth above.
Scheib teaches the system further comprising a sterile interface module that connects the surgical instrument to the instrument drive unit (¶89).
Regarding claim 17, Scheib modified by Loh teaches the surgical system of claim 16, as set forth above.
Scheib teaches wherein the movable segment (1854) is movable (¶157, longitudinally moveable) relative to the surgical instrument (1853).
Regarding claim 18, Scheib modified by Loh teaches the surgical system of claim 17, as set forth above.
Loh teaches a moveable segment (FIG 5C, linear slide mechanism; ¶47) including a mount assembly (FIG 5B; 108) configured to support the surgical portal 110 (FIG 5C).
Regarding claim 19, Scheib modified by Loh teaches the surgical system of claim 18, as set forth above.
Scheib teaches wherein the drive housing (1852) supports a drive motor (¶157) and a drive that is operable by the drive motor (¶157) to cause the movable segment (1854) to move relative to the stationary segment (1852).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
The prior art made of record and not presently relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cagle et al., US 20180078439 (22 March 2018) teaches table adapters for mounting robotic arms to a surgical table.
Kopp, US 20180110576 (26 April 2018) teaches coupling instrument drive unit and robotic surgical instrument.
Shields et al., US 20200323597 (15 October 2020) teaches robotic surgical instrument including instrument rotation based on translation position.
Shields et al., WO 2019108564 (6 June 2019) teaches robotic surgical instrument including instrument rotation based on translation position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERIE M POLAND whose telephone number is (703)756-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-W (9am-9pm CST) and R-F (9am-3pm CST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jackie Ho can be reached at 571-272-4696. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHERIE M POLAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3771
/SHAUN L DAVID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771